The New Game

In spite of the Crawford decision, the District Attorney’s Office’s mad dog approach to these cases has not changed. Prosecutors are now going to extreme lengths to compel victim’s testimony. For example, when victims refuse to appear in court, prosecutors sometimes obtain “body attachments” or warrants for their arrests, and then send their investigators after the victims to have them hauled into court. In other instances, prosecutors will go so far as to charge victims with contempt of court for failing to appear. Thus, it is not unheard of these days where both the accuser and the accused are facing criminal charges.

Furthermore, frightening cat and mouse games are being played out on the streets as a result of the District Attorney’s current position of chasing after victims. Government officials are pounding on the doors of victim’s homes, going to victim’s work places, and conducting around the clock surveillances of the victim’s known hangouts. Meanwhile, victims are taking time off of work, refusing to answer their phones, and booking trips out of the state to avoid detection.

At the risk of being labeled a proponent of domestic violence, I believe it is time for a change in the way our system handles cases involving uncooperative and recanting victims of domestic violence. My belief that we need to change the criminal justice system’s method for handling these cases is based on the following four arguments:

1) The government’s position of not listening to victim’s of domestic violence when they do not wish prosecution is based on a flawed assumption that these people cannot think for themselves. Most people who call the police because of a domestic disturbance do not suffer from Domestic Violence Syndrome. After all, women are much more independent than they were in the past, and it is much easier for people to leave relationships these days with the help of emergency protective orders issued by the police and restraining orders issued by the family courts.

2) If a person truly wants to continue in a relationship or has hopes of keeping a family together, why is the government so quick to interfere with that decision? Isn’t it a no-brainer that a criminal conviction for domestic violence is likely to damage the relationship, especially where there has been a loss of liberty or employment opportunities?

3) If our main concern in these cases is to protect victims of domestic violence, why are we making it scary for people to call the police? Certainly in some cases it is appropriate for the police to simply keep the peace without making an arrest. However, with the current policy, people who are deserving of this basic police service do not call the police because of the severe consequences that usually follow.

4) Why is our government wasting so much money chasing after recanting victims when the likelihood of obtaining a conviction is so little? Although I do not have statistics to support this argument, I know from being in court that there is an enormous increase in the amount of these cases dismissed in spite of the government’s expenditures in attempting to locate uncooperative or recanting victims.

Page 2 of 3 :: First | Last :: Prev | 1 2 3 | Next